The Library

Emerging prenatal genetic tests : developing a health technology assessment (HTA) framework for informed decision-making

Tools

Szczepura, Ala, Freeman, Karoline, Osipenko, Leeza and Hyde, Julia (2005) Emerging prenatal genetic tests : developing a health technology assessment (HTA) framework for informed decision-making. [Coventry]: University of Warwick. (Initial report).

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Szczepura_DelphiReportfinal.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (2921Kb)

Official URL: http://www.safenoe.org/files/public/wp6/DelphiRepo...

Abstract

Delphi Process
In preparation for the first Delphi exercise, a list of questions was produced from the academic literature, webbased
sources and interviews with experts. These questions were structured into broad dimensions and a draft
questionnaire piloted. A final list of 73 questions formed the basis of the first Delphi survey. Participants were
asked to grade the perceived importance of each question for inclusion in HTA reports on new prenatal genetic
tests (4 = Essential; 3 = Desirable, but not essential; 2 = Useful but should not be required; 1 = Of little/ no
importance; 0 = I have no basis for judgement). Secondly, they were asked to indicate whether a question
should be addressed during test development or whether the question could be addressed later once the
technology is ready for implementation. Finally, Panel members were encouraged to identify any other questions
which appeared to be missing from the initial list. For copy of questionnaire, see Annex 1: Delphi Round 1
Questionnaire.
Respondents were also asked to provide personal details to give some indication of their HTA experience and
specialist expertise. Analysis of responses demonstrated that SAFE Delphi panel members represent a highly
experienced, multidisciplinary international group of experts with the knowledge required to define which key
questions should be addressed in HTA reports on new prenatal genetic tests.
Delphi Responses
Responses were received from 77/90 (86%) of Panel members. These were analysed with a cut-off of 75%
(±3%) applied as an indicator of Panel consensus for all questions. Thus, any question which three out of four
respondents rated as essential or desirable was retained, whilst those not achieving this level of agreement were
provisionally excluded. In addition, mean scores were also calculated (excluding 0 = I have no basis for
judgement) for each question. A mean score >3.25 ± 0.05 was taken as an indication that the Panel had
identified a particular question as being of the highest priority to address in HTA.

Item Type:

Report

Subjects:

R Medicine > RJ Pediatrics

Divisions:

Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Population, Evidence & Technologies (PET) > Warwick Evidence
Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):

Prenatal diagnosis, Diagnosis, Noninvasive, Fetal cells from maternal blood

Series Name:

Initial report

Publisher:

University of Warwick

Place of Publication:

[Coventry]

ISBN:

0953543056

Official Date:

December 2005

Dates:

Date	Event
December 2005	Published

Number of Pages:

Status:

Not Peer Reviewed

Access rights to Published version:

Open Access

Description:

Final version (published as open access)

Funder:

Sixth Framework Programme (European Commission) (FP6)

References:

1) Bewley S, Davies M, Braude P. Which career first? The most secure age for child-bearing remains 20-
35. BMJ 2005; 331: 588-9.
2) Barabási AL. Network Theory – the Emergence of the Creative Enterprise. Science 2005; 308: 639-
641.
3) Guimera R, Uzzi B, Spiro J, Amaral LAN. Team Assembly Mechanisms Determine Collaboration
Network Structure and Team Performance. Science 2005; 308: 697-702.
4) Szczepura AK, Kankaanpää J (eds) Assessment of Health Care Technologies: Case Studies, Key
Concepts and Strategic Issues, John Wiley, Chichester, 1996.
5) Linstone HA, Turoff M “The Delphi Method”. 1975; Reading, Massachusetts.
6) Lazaro P. Fitch K. From universalism to selectivity: is 'appropriateness' the answer?. Health Policy.
36(3):261-72, 1996 Jun.
7) Hillman BJ. Hessel SJ. Swensson RG. Herman PG. Improving diagnostic accuracy: a comparison of
interactive and Delphi consultations. Investigative Radiology 1977; 12(2):112-5
8) Robert G. Gabbay J. Stevens A. Which are the best information sources for identifying emerging
health care technologies? An international Delphi survey. International Journal of Technology
Assessment in Health Care. 14(4):636-43, 1998.
9) Whiting P. Rutjes AW. Dinnes J. Reitsma J. Bossuyt PM. Kleijnen J. Development and validation of
methods for assessing the quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. Health Technology Assessment
(Winchester, England). 8(25):iii, 1-234, 2004 Jun.
10) Fletcher JW. Woolf SH. Royal HD. Consensus development for producing diagnostic procedure
guidelines: SPECT brain perfusion imaging with exametazime. Journal of Nuclear Medicine.
35(12):2003-10, 1994 Dec.
11) Arevalo JA. Washington AE. Cost-effectiveness of prenatal screening and immunization for hepatitis B
virus. JAMA. 259(3):365-9, 1988 Jan 15.
12) Vergeer MM. van Balen F. Ketting E. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis as an alternative to
amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling: psychosocial and ethical aspects. Patient Education &
Counseling. 35(1):5-13, 1998 Sep.
13) Cassidy DA. Bove CM. Factors perceived to influence parental decision-making regarding
presymptomatic testing of children at risk for treatable adult-onset genetic disorders. Issues in
Comprehensive Pediatric Nursing. 21(1):19-34, 1998 Jan-Mar.
14) Evers S. Goossens M. de Vet H. van Tulder M. Ament A. Criteria list for assessment of
methodological quality of economic evaluations: Consensus on Health Economic Criteria. International
Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 21(2):240-5, 2005.
15) Maibach H. Keenlyside R. Fitzmaurice D. Brogan D. Essien J. Future directions for research in
laboratory medicine: the findings of a Delphi survey of stakeholders. Clinical Laboratory Management
Review. 12(4):221-30; discussion 231, 1998 Jul-Aug.
16) Wilson JMG, Junger G. Principles and Practice of Screening for Disease. WHO Public Paper 34.
Geneva: World Health Bibliography Organization, 1968.
17) Whitby LG. Screening for disease: Definitions and criteria. Lancet 2:819-822, 1974.
18) Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Task Force: A review of
the process. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 20: 21-35, 2001.
19) Saha S, Hoerger TJ, Pignone MP et al. The art and science of incorporating cost-effectiveness into
evidence-based recommendations for clinical preventive services. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine 20: 36-43, 2001.
Emerging Prenatal Genetic Tests:
Developing HTA Framework for Informed Decision-making
20) Fineberg HV, Bauman R, Sosman M. Computerized cranial tomography: effect on diagnostic and
therapeutic plans. Journal of the American Medical Association 1977; 238: 224-30.
21) Institute of Medicine. Assessing Medical Technologies. Washington DC: National Academy press,
1985.
22) Drummond MF, Jefferson TO. Guidelines for Authors and Peer reviewers of Economic submissions to
the BMJ. BMJ. 313: 275-83, 1996.
23) Wald N, Cuckle H. Reporting the assessment of screening and diagnostic tests. British J Obstetrics
and Gynaecology 96: 389-396, 1989.
24) http://www.cdc.gov/genomics/gtesting/ACCE.htm
25) STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) Initiative. http://www.consortstatement.
org/standardstatement.htm
26) Szczepura AK, Kankaanpää J "Interests in health care technology assessment (HCTA) and HCTA
training needs in eight European countries: COMETT-ASSESS" Social Science & Medicine: Economic
Appraisal Special Issue; 38: 1679-1688, 1994.
27) Health Technology Assessment in Europe: the challenge of coordination 1999. Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities, Belgium
28) Giacomini M, Mille F, Bowman G. Confronting the 'gray zones' in technology assessment: evaluation
genetic testing services for public insurance coverage in Canada. Int. J Technology Assessment in
Health Care. 2003; 19: 301-316.